7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Facing Racism and Sexism in Science by Fighting Against Social Implicit Bias: A Latina and Black Woman’s Perspective

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The editors of several major journals have recently asserted the importance of combating racism and sexism in science. This is especially relevant now, as the COVID-19 pandemic may have led to a widening of the gender and racial/ethnicity gaps. Implicit bias is a crucial component in this fight. Negative stereotypes that are socially constructed in a given culture are frequently associated with implicit bias (which is unconscious or not perceived). In the present article, we point to scientific evidence that shows the presence of implicit bias in the academic community, contributing to strongly damaging unconscious evaluations and judgments of individuals or groups. Additionally, we suggest several actions aimed at (1) editors and reviewers of scientific journals (2) people in positions of power within funding agencies and research institutions, and (3) members of selection committees to mitigate this effect. These recommendations are based on the experience of a group of Latinx American scientists comprising Black and Latina women, teachers, and undergraduate students who participate in women in science working group at universities in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. With this article, we hope to contribute to reflections, actions, and the development of institutional policies that enable and consolidate diversity in science and reduce disparities based on gender and race/ethnicity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references79

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Does rejection hurt? An FMRI study of social exclusion.

            A neuroimaging study examined the neural correlates of social exclusion and tested the hypothesis that the brain bases of social pain are similar to those of physical pain. Participants were scanned while playing a virtual ball-tossing game in which they were ultimately excluded. Paralleling results from physical pain studies, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) was more active during exclusion than during inclusion and correlated positively with self-reported distress. Right ventral prefrontal cortex (RVPFC) was active during exclusion and correlated negatively with self-reported distress. ACC changes mediated the RVPFC-distress correlation, suggesting that RVPFC regulates the distress of social exclusion by disrupting ACC activity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test.

              An implicit association test (IAT) measures differential association of 2 target concepts with an attribute. The 2 concepts appear in a 2-choice task (2-choice task (e.g., flower vs. insect names), and the attribute in a 2nd task (e.g., pleasant vs. unpleasant words for an evaluation attribute). When instructions oblige highly associated categories (e.g., flower + pleasant) to share a response key, performance is faster than when less associated categories (e.g., insect & pleasant) share a key. This performance difference implicitly measures differential association of the 2 concepts with the attribute. In 3 experiments, the IAT was sensitive to (a) near-universal evaluative differences (e.g., flower vs. insect), (b) expected individual differences in evaluative associations (Japanese + pleasant vs. Korean + pleasant for Japanese vs. Korean subjects), and (c) consciously disavowed evaluative differences (Black + pleasant vs. White + pleasant for self-described unprejudiced White subjects).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                16 July 2021
                2021
                : 12
                : 671481
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Neurobiology, Institute of Biology, Universidade Federal Fluminense , Niterói, Brazil
                [2] 2Laboratory of Neurobiology, Instituto de Biofísica Carlos Chagas Filho, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro , Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                [3] 3Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Biomedical Institute, Universidade Federal Fluminense , Niterói, Brazil
                [4] 4Department of Physics, Institute of Physics, Universidade Federal Fluminense , Niterói, Brazil
                [5] 5Department of Sociology and Methodology of Social Sciences, Institute of Human Sciences and Philosophy, Universidade Federal Fluminense , Niterói, Brazil
                [6] 6Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Institute of Biology, Universidade Federal Fluminense , Niterói, Brazil
                [7] 7Chemistry Institute, Universidade Federal Fluminense , Niterói, Brazil
                [8] 8Biomedical Institute, Universidade Federal Fluminense , Niterói, Brazil
                [9] 9Institute of Biology, Universidade Federal Fluminense , Niterói, Brazil
                Author notes

                Edited by: Sarah Barnard, Loughborough University, United Kingdom

                Reviewed by: David Stuart Smith, Robert Gordon University, United Kingdom; Fernando Salinas-Quiroz, Tufts University, United States

                *Correspondence: Leticia de Oliveira, oliveira_leticia@ 123456id.uff.br
                Karin C. Calaza, kcalaza@ 123456id.uff.br

                These authors have contributed equally to this work and share senior authorship

                This article was submitted to Gender, Sex and Sexualities, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2021.671481
                8322228
                34335385
                3f74a6a8-b346-4179-ab39-631d4da9864a
                Copyright © 2021 Calaza, Erthal, Pereira, Macario, Daflon, David, Castro, Vargas, Martins, Stariolo, Volchan and de Oliveira.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 23 February 2021
                : 10 June 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 80, Pages: 9, Words: 6489
                Categories
                Psychology
                Policy and Practice Reviews

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                implicit bias,stereotype threat,gender inequalities,diversity,underrepresented groups

                Comments

                Comment on this article